25 replies to this topic

[robg]

i think it would be good if they did it like on broadway  i love going on to Playbill website  each week they publish a chart with every show , with gross , how many performances , how many seats , ticket price , and the % change from week to week very interesting stuff

[KevinUK]

I know that it depends on how many people get into see a show, but surely most shows don't make a loss? I assume those who are in it for the long haul (such as Sister Act) could make a loss when it doesn't take off quite as expected, but shows that are of a predetermined run shouldn't make a loss if they can pull in the crowds - otherwise what's the point in even trying?

I assume limited run shows such as 'A Chorus of Disproval' or 'The Sunshine Boys' made a profit, where as I think we can agree Loserville definitely didn't. Yet something that seemed like a reasonable hit - Shrek for example - you'd have thought would have covered its costs and was into profit area by now.

I know that most say shows don't make a profit, but if its true for most shows I don't get how you can make a career in the business end, or why many shows want to be in the west end.

[Jon]

I imagine shows that are limited runs are budgeted so they can hopefully recoup by the end of the run. I believe that A Chorus of Disapproval recouped before its closed.

[Epicoene]

KevinUK, on 22 January 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

I assume limited run shows such as 'A Chorus of Disproval' or 'The Sunshine Boys' made a profit,

I wouldn't necessarily assume that, there must be lots of upfront fixed costs (designer's fee, building the set, director's fee, publicity & marketing) which could be harder to recoup in a short run. Also the short-run examples you mention probably have very high costs for the star actors.

[Honoured Guest]

Surely limited runs are budgeted to go into profit above a certain audience capacity?

[armadillo]

Runs of more than a year for musicals  certainly weren't standard until post-war and the sort of successful West End play that spawned a film in the 1950s would only run for 5 months or so. I doubt Margaret Lockwood or Ralph Richardson was paid less than SRB relatively speaking (and plays often had very large casts - there weren't many 3 handers back then) so it would be interesting to know exactly where the increased costs are.